tv [untitled] December 18, 2010 6:30am-7:00am PST
site. the other thing that is not being discussed is the transit. that is the biggest issue. i will put this on the overhead. that is the spot where you have the biggest problem currently with traffic and transit. will parker said contribute seriously as financial partners to the city? reduce the number of transit, do not put three and then have a dead end. have a vision for the future that is not just one proposal by one architect. open the ideas.
the congress come at a surfy fell fill our for over to the side and it seems like a perfect idea. >> the plan is the committee a positive outlook. i am glad to see them get to this point. thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to express my frustration at going after the hearing at san francisco state and seeing anonymous flyers that people will have their homes and bulldozed. this can only be to instill
fear. there is no evidence that that is the case. if there's evidence that rent- controlled housing will be lost, put that evidence forward. this project as designed and built is a celebration of core values. and this amounts of cheap energy. most importantly, convenience for automobiles and drivers. it is hard to imagine values which are more at odds with the challenges we face today. i really like the presentation. we are seeing this project in
levels of detail and specificity that we never saw with hunter's point or treasure island. you have seen the development of golf. this is terrific. i would like to see a conversation on how to improve land use is on the west side where a discussion is not made into something awful housing has to be for something else. >> i am in favor of the plan. rent-controlled. getting a new place. the main thing i think is
because this is moving towards a more sustainable project. there are green businesses, housing, we have seen this across the entire city. i am part of a committee farm outside of the city. there will be water conservation and that is really great. california has big water problems. that is all. thank you.
>> thank you for spending the time listening to this. we need more housing opportunities for san franciscans. i grew up in the southeastern section of san francisco. i went to san francisco state university. i became aware of this project through the out reach of -- representatives. and support the need for smart housing growth in san francisco. this project will help our struggling -- get back on track.
the plan will have a lasting positive affect for communities. they really listen to to what the residences want. i fully support the plan. this will increase the housing and opportunities for san franciscans. many people are moving to other parts of the bay area. this will help. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, eric brooks representing the green party. what happened last week was one of the most fine examples of democratic process that i have ever seen.
nothing that staff presented was any kind of legal counter to this very clear argument that shows that to this will not be enforced. on other things in the presentation, transportation. shifting the line a little bit and having shuttles will not do anything to shift the level of transportation that is needed. you put it density in urban areas. this is not an urban area, this is more suburban. the density needs to go
downtown. if the developer was really concerned about designing a step that would reduce greenhouse gases, why would they be enticing every tenet replacement and every new tenant with their own washer and dryer? the first thing that you do is to set it up so that people share washers and dryers and don't use huge amounts of energy to do that. i heard the transit represent of save the word it is -- if. this need to be a greatly scaled-down project as i have said. >> is there additional public comment?
you are very dependent on not just hearing from the city staff and the mayor's office, you need to hear from the neighbors and opponents and other experts. for that testimony and for that hearing to be meaningful, those people should be talking about the same thing that your staff is presenting to you but we are not, we're still playing the bottom half of the previous inning. this is the second time a presentation has been made about a development agreement. i will not attempt to comment on this. i have not seen this, it will take me hours to look at. i will go home and put some lights on my trees with my daughter.
information that we have when making these decisions. this is a very intense project. of a light to understand if there are other examples in the city that have a 30-year of facing. i am trying to think of something that has already happened. there will be more information that i will want. i want to get a better sense of that and i am with a lack of
the tenderloin housing clinic, they were working with the tenants there. there was a lot of communication, there was a lot of discussion with the city agencies. they are bringing the parties together to discuss the issues. this is a completely different situation. so, i think at some point, i don't know how this would come together so it would be good to have a conversation.
there is a lot of contradictions around the parking requirement. for market and batavia, this is example of the neighborhood plan that is based on transit oriented development. we have spent hours here discussing parking requirements. we are all over the map. there is no consistent policy as it relates to parking
it would be nice to have someone address this. since it has been raised more than once, it would be good to have something on that. i just want to make sure that we have this one right. >> this was a good presentation. this was assurances of rent control. this is public comment. we don't have to drag people by
a poll. we will comment in -- on it and have different points is you. that would be a good thing. a think that we can make some great strides and not just bring in the muni into park merced and a fly over. this is a hitch connection as well. now we have to do is take it to a big circle and write it all all the way to civic center.
they have to come up with a solution to move some of that traffic. in terms of that parking, i heard some residents comment about the parking which would not be enough. with families and visitors, this is probably what is appropriate for that area and that is one question that is not need toi te will need to look at as we get further into the discussion of how this is being set up. there are certainly a lot of challenges.
if they are to be preserved, it would be a huge job in comparison to creating new units. the development agreement sets of the situation where it can proceed at its own speed. the way the development committee is set up, when they perceived with development they can proceed with respect to replacement units and transportation improvements and that kind of thing.
>> i guess i was asking for other examples, trying to get a picture of what this will look like. >> i think it is important, because it is tremendously flexible. on the part of the developer, i can understand. it is certainly advantageous to the developer, and i am trying to understand how that impacts the city itself and what that means in the long run. you do not have to answer that. it is too late. maybe we will ask that next time. on to the development agreement, you are not proposing to pose any other revisions through the holidays, are you? i can safely go through draft 3
if i have it. that is about all i have. i thought last week's meeting was unusual but kind of a refreshing change from the way we do business, and since we're on somebody else's turf, i think expanding the presentation was all right to give people a chance to say what they wanted, since a lot of them have difficulties getting down to city hall, so i thought that was all right, and we're back on our turf now in a sense, and we will see how that goes. >vice-president olague: i also want to thank people for showing up last week. if that is pretty impressive. i agree with commissioner
sugaya. people have the opportunity to address the commission, so i was grateful for that. >> you have completed your public hearing on this item. there is no action completed by you. >> i just have one question for the next hearing. we just continued until the 13th of january. wasn't there a presentation that was supposed to be made tonight?
>> correct. we also are working to catch up on all the individual questions that are raised. we will present any thing from seismic safety to the building that will be demolished. >> that is not my saying. if you could throw in the phasing aspect. >> of all that will be on the 13th. that concludes tonight's presentation on this item. we are not finished. we still have the general public comments. >> is there any general public comment on non-agenda items?
>> eric brooks, once again representing the green party and the local grassroots organization. you will soon be having returned to view of portion of the ceqa process legislation. i noticed you did not get a lot of folks like me that were speaking on the previous discretionary review, but i can tell you the same parties concerned about discretionary review are even more concerned about the changes in ceqa access and more alarmed by them, so that is why you are getting a piece of them back. a lot of us are working on a lot of different land use projects. i wanted to come here while you
were considering ceqa, but i did not have time. there is a great level of concerns expressed of the board of supervisors, and that is why this is coming back to you. it is not something most of the folks are also just as concerned if not more about this, and we would like you to give it more scrutiny this time. >> i want to also put that out there. there were pieces we actually thought work. >> the entire package was something we want to see. thank you. >> i need to say daniel phillips has been removed by the board. has been removed by the board.